backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 45 comment(s) - last by kelmon.. on Aug 14 at 4:55 AM

Jobs says App Store generated $30 million in sales already

When the Apple App Store for the iPhone was first announced, users were very excited about the prospect of being able to add games and extend the functionality of the iPhone via software. Some, however, were not certain that having to buy software to add features many feel should have been included on the iPhone to begin with would prove to be popular.

In June of 2008, an analyst from investment bank Piper Jaffray said that the App Store could prove to be a business worth over $1 billion by 2009. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reports that the App Store sold about $30 million in applications after the end of its first full month of sales. In all, Apple CEO Steve Jobs says that over 60 million applications were downloaded from the App Store -- most of them free applications.

If sales remain at the pace the App Store set its first month, Apple would make about $360 million a year. Jobs points out that Apple only gets to keep 30% of the money made from the App Store -- the other 70% goes to the App developers. The WSJ quotes Jobs saying, "This thing's (the App Store) going to crest a half a billion, soon. Who knows, maybe it will be a $1 billion marketplace at some point in time."

The WSJ reports that software developers are surprised by the popularity of their applications for the iPhone. Sega Corp. says that it has already sold over 300,000 copies of its $9.99 Super Monkeyball game in the first 20 days it was available. Sega's U.S. president Simon Jeffery said, "That's a substantial business. It gives iPhone a justifiable claim to being a viable gaming platform."

Apple is looking at the App Store in the same way it looked at selling music for its iPod. Rather than trying to make huge sums of money off applications sold in the App Store -- Apple expects the App Store will drive sales of the iPhone.

Jobs told the WSJ, "Phone differentiation used to be about radios and antennas and things like that. We think, going forward, the phone of the future will be differentiated by software."

Jobs also confirmed for the WSJ that there is in fact a kill switch built-in that will allow Apple to remotely kill and remove any application sold via the App Store from a user's iPhone. Jobs says that Apple needs such an ability in case it inadvertently allowed a malicious application to be sold through the App Store. Jobs said that the kill switch would be needed, for example, if an application were found to be stealing a user's personal data.

Jobs said, "Hopefully we never have to pull that lever, but we would be irresponsible not to have a lever like that to pull."

DailyTech reported last week that a rumor was suggesting that Apple could remotely terminate Apps on the iPhone. Apple also says that it has already removed one application from the App Store called I Am Rich. The application in question sold for $999.99 and did nothing other than display a glowing red gem on the screen of the iPhone.

Creator of the I Am Rich application, Armin Heinrich, says that he thought he followed the rules Apple has for developers when designing his application. An Apple representative said that Apple made a "judgment call" on removing the application from the store. There is no word on whether or not anyone had actually purchased the I Am Rich application, leading to the need to use the kill switch. Apple was also not clear on if consumer who bought applications that were remotely terminated would be refunded the amount of the purchase price.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

So wth
By yacoub on 8/11/2008 3:38:05 PM , Rating: 5
So it sounds like Apple just decided they didn't like his app, and even though it did nothing malicious , they removed it. That's typical Apple for you, I guess, but it's still incredibly lame and anti-entrepreneurial.




RE: So wth
By Chocolate Pi on 8/11/2008 3:41:50 PM , Rating: 5
Nothing malicious? Apple had every right to remove this app, it was blatant copyright infringement of their intellectual property!


RE: So wth
By Bull Dog on 8/11/2008 3:54:08 PM , Rating: 4
Well said mate.

Apple couldn't let other people sell iDiamonds.

The horrors!


RE: So wth
By fotoguy on 8/11/2008 5:44:01 PM , Rating: 1
The application had a red gem on the screen. Assuming it was not a graphic from one of those Gems games, what copyright has he infringed?


RE: So wth
By michael2k on 8/11/2008 7:21:03 PM , Rating: 5
He probably meant overpriced and under-featured.


RE: So wth
By Gul Westfale on 8/11/2008 7:37:08 PM , Rating: 5
those two are apple trademarks, alright!


RE: So wth
By marvdmartian on 8/11/2008 4:16:09 PM , Rating: 5
These apps just go to show you that P.T. Barnum was right all along.....there's a sucker born every minute!

Or, in today's lingo, there's an i-schmuck born every minute!! ;)


RE: So wth
By omnicronx on 8/11/2008 5:00:13 PM , Rating: 2
Whats stupid is someone at Apple had to have allowed the download in the first place... I am pretty sure that apple screens which products they want to add to the apple store.. who was the moron that allowed a 999$ app that does nothing in the first place?


RE: So wth
By michael2k on 8/11/2008 7:29:32 PM , Rating: 2
It was a mistake on Apple's part. They also let the NetShare app in twice, despite it violating AT&T's terms of service.


RE: So wth
By kelmon on 8/13/2008 4:29:41 AM , Rating: 2
I think the problem here is that the application didn't actually breach any of the stated requirements for an iPhone application and the author is perfectly entitled to sell their work for any price they see fit. In this respect Apple can't refuse the application since it was neither pornographic or malware. In the end it was no doubt pulled due to the bad publicity that it generated for obvious reasons. Better QA at the start of the process should have been in place but I suspect that Apple weren't expecting the volume of applications that they've received.

The considerable shame from all this is that, while this useless application was granted acceptance into the App Store, there are a reasonable number of very talented Mac developers still waiting to get accepted into the iPhone developer program. There doesn't seem to be a reason why some developers get accepted and others are still having to wait. Until you get accepted you can't even test your application on your own iPhone but instead have to rely on the SDK's simulator.


RE: So wth
By 4play on 8/11/2008 5:36:20 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah it's complete BS, I was just about to bring out my 'I am richer than "I Am Rich application" application' for $10,000!


RE: So wth
By michael2k on 8/11/2008 7:27:56 PM , Rating: 4
Isn't that their right as a retailer?

Especially if the application IS useless and essentially a scam?


RE: So wth
By Topweasel on 8/13/2008 11:49:19 AM , Rating: 2
It's their right to not sell it. It is not their right to be able to decide they don't like what a company has sold and pull a lever that retro-actively removes it from everyone's phone.


Funny
By FITCamaro on 8/11/2008 4:33:31 PM , Rating: 5
If Microsoft had a phone and such a kill switch built in, they'd be ridiculed so much you'd think they were responsible for the Holocaust.

Apple does it and "Oh yeah....I can see how that might be useful..."




RE: Funny
By tayhimself on 8/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: Funny
By EntreHoras on 8/11/2008 5:27:35 PM , Rating: 5
C'mon. It's not the same and you know it.
The same should be that MS had a kill switch to block any 360 game you have. Like if some day the people at MS said "You know? Maybe this Grand Theft Auto IV game is not suitable to be played in our consoles. Let's kill it"


RE: Funny
By HsiKai on 8/11/2008 7:37:28 PM , Rating: 5
That is an exceedingly poor analogy. If Microsoft had a kill switch to render your X360 games inoperable then it might be a similar problem. Banning you because you cheat or act inappropriately is something that you have to agree to via the Xbox Live EULA. I don't know what the iPhone's EULA says or each individual's application, but it would be nice to have a heads-up as far as Apple's divine right to alter your iPhone without your explicit consent.


RE: Funny
By insurgent on 8/11/2008 9:00:01 PM , Rating: 2
Don't let logic get in the way of an iFan.


RE: Funny
By stinkyj on 8/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: Funny
By CascadingDarkness on 8/12/2008 3:24:47 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't you hear though, enforcing things under the EULA is the wonderful new road we're heading down.
http://www.dailytech.com/Blizzard+Victorious+in+La...


RE: Funny
By michael2k on 8/11/2008 7:37:38 PM , Rating: 2
Just because it can be abused doesn't mean it can't also be useful.

There are plenty of cases in history where something useful has been abused, and vice versa.

Of course it's all Apple's game to screw up now by misuse or abuse.